[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5367-5373]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      MAKING THE CASE AGAINST IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to cover two 
points. One will cover recent rulings in the FCC regarding the 1996 
Telecommunications Act, and the other is we are going to talk about our 
foreign policy with Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Telecommunications Act was heralded as a 
grand attempt to move the telecom markets toward competition. I was a 
conferee on that bill. It was a great compromise between the House and 
the Senate. That bill was greatly heralded by many people, but 7 years 
later the Act's intent has been overrun by the FCC's recent decision 
that has effectively blocked competition and created disincentives for 
investment by maintaining the UNE-P status quo.

[[Page 5368]]



                              {time}  1415

  It is not only the intent of the act that is being circumvented. More 
tangibly, the already-fragile telecom industry has suffered another 
financial setback. In response to the FCC's decision, many of Wall 
Street's analysts have made their voices heard on the negative effects 
that the decision will have on the economy, including Morgan Stanley, 
Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and others.
  An analogy of the FCC's decision would be to allow McDonald's, or 
Burger King, a competitor, to come into their restaurants and use their 
entire facilities. You bring your meat, you fry it up, you bring your 
own drinks, you use it all, you use their advertising, you use their 
building, you use their drive-up window, you use their cash registers, 
and you are in competition with the McDonald's or Burger King 
franchise?
  No one in America would ever allow a competitor to do such a thing. 
But that is what is happening in the telecommunications industry. What 
incentive is there at all to allow investment, if that in fact is what 
is going to occur?
  As a matter of public policy, the FCC's decision simply makes no 
sense. On one hand, the commission deregulates broadband, and on the 
other hand it complicates and multiplies regulation on UNE-P.
  Last year, this body passed the Tauzin-Dingell broadband legislation, 
273 to 157. I think we could argue that the will of the Congress had an 
impact on how the FCC views broadband. Do we now pass another bill to 
show the FCC that further regulation on UNE-P offers no help to the 
Nation's economy? Mr. Speaker, if that is what it takes, then I say, 
let us do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services has joined us here for this Special Order on behalf of the 
Republican leadership.
  There were some what I call the voices of dissent that came to the 
floor, the voice of dissent with regard to war. I call it the sounds of 
freedom. One was asking, please give peace a chance. The other one was 
saying I am concerned about the long-term damage to our alliances if we 
do not follow what Germany, Russia, China, and France are asking for. 
The other says we just need to continue our diplomacy and we should 
follow the lead of the French. That was the voice of dissent that came 
here to the floor today.
  I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), to those 
voices out there that say give peace a chance, it is easy to say that 
when you sit in freedom, and peace is truly the consequence of freedom. 
America represents freedom, and we export hope and opportunity; and 
Iraq and some of the sub-national terrorist organizations that 
represent tyranny, they export fear and terror.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield on that point, I agree with 
the gentleman that the folks who express their dissent and have been 
expressing their dissent in government, basically giving the other side 
of the debate, are providing a public service by doing that. But I 
think there are a few observations that are important here.
  There have been people demonstrating worldwide in large numbers, 
hundreds of thousands of people, against the prospect of war with Iraq. 
I do not think any of those people demonstrated when the Kurdish babies 
were laid low by the gas attacks with poison gas that Saddam Hussein 
spread over their villages.
  I do not think any of those folks demonstrated when he gassed 
Iranians by the tens of thousands, or when he executed his own people, 
cut off their ears and did the myriad of reprehensible acts that have 
now been ascribed to him, both in closed-door sessions by our 
intelligence officers and in open sessions by various human rights 
agencies.
  So I think it is always important to set the record straight, or to 
come into these debates with a full understanding of where they come 
from. And I think one of the most honest talk shows that was ever 
devised for television was ``Crossfire,'' where the conservative would 
say ``from the right,'' and the liberal would say ``from the left.''
  But it is obvious that the people who are demonstrating by the 
hundreds of thousands, some of them well-meaning people, also include 
lots of people who are not necessarily demonstrating because they have 
a great love of mankind, or that they are special peace people or have 
a special care about humanity, because, if they did, they would have 
been demonstrating when Saddam Hussein gassed those Kurdish babies by 
the hundreds. They were not demonstrating there, so that did not bother 
them.
  It did not bother them because it was not destabilizing. I think a 
lot of folks do not like the idea that war in itself is something 
unsure, it is destabilizing, that it potentially affects the cost of 
gasoline in your automobile, it potentially affects your community, it 
may affect relatives who may have to go off to war. So it is something 
that brings about a feeling of unsettlement.
  But let us answer that question the gentleman brought up, why are we 
entering into this confrontation, it appears? I think one question that 
could be well thrown back is this: in 1991, when we had not only lots 
of folks in this country and around the world against us taking action 
against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, we not only had lots of folks on 
the streets around the world, but we also had a majority of the 
Democrat leadership. I do not fault that Democrat leadership for having 
taken their position, which they have a political right to do, and 
taking that side of the debate. But we found afterwards, to answer 
those people who said give peace some time, give it a chance, give us 
another 10 months, 18 months, whatever, we found out that according to 
United Nations estimates, Saddam Hussein at the time that we defeated 
him in battle was 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon.
  So certainly those well-meaning folks who thought that time was on 
our side discovered afterward, and to the surprise of everyone, 
conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, none of us knew how 
close he was to having that system. So time is not always on our side.
  It is my estimate, after having conducted some closed hearings and 
some open hearings, eight hearings in total, it is my judgment that 
this country is going to have a nuclear device in about 3 years, and, 
along with that capability, possessing that capability, because we have 
allies who have nuclear devices, Britain has nuclear devices and we are 
not worried about them, that country has with its present leadership, I 
think, the intent to use that capability against Americans, either in 
theater or in the American homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, when you add up capability plus intent, you have a 
national interest; and our national interest now is to take that away 
from him before he has the full capability. So I think that reasonable 
people can differ on this subject. But the lesson of Desert Storm I was 
that time is not always on our side.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, beginning with the threat, I think is 
probably the right place for us to start this discussion here today.
  A report released on September 9, 2002, from the International 
Institute for Strategic Studies, an independent research organization, 
concludes that Saddam Hussein at that time, actually Saddam Hussein 
could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain the 
fissile material. Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and 
has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. 
We all know about the aluminum tubes, the dual-use material and 
technologies that he has been trying to obtain.
  So the gentleman's comments with regard to time, it is true; and I do 
not know why some people are unwilling to acknowledge this individual's 
ambitions. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear 
scientists over the past few years, signaling his continued interest in 
developing a nuclear weapons program.
  With regard to chemical munitions, Iraq admits but UNSCOM cannot 
confirm the destruction of 6,500 chemical-

[[Page 5369]]

weapon bombs filled with 1,000 tons of agent, over 3,000 tons of 
chemical warfare agents, 614 tons of precursor chemicals used to make 
the most toxic nerve agent, VX, 550 artillery munitions, 155 
millimeter, filled with mustard and chemical warfare agent, and 31,658 
empty and filled chemical weapons munitions.
  Iraq continues to rebuild and expand the dual-use infrastructure that 
could quickly divert from chemical weapons production such as chlorine 
and phenol plants.
  Iraq is seeking also to purchase chemical weapons, agents, 
precursors, and applicable production equipment and is making an 
effort, obviously, to hide those facilities while inspections even 
continue.
  With regard to biological weapons, Iraq admits, but the U.N. cannot 
confirm, the destruction of 8,500 liters of anthrax, 2,160 kilograms of 
bacterial-growth media, enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax, 
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 5,500 liters of aflatoxin.
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield on that point, the facts 
that the gentleman is putting out are especially important because 
those are not guesses on our part. In fact, they are not even guesses 
on the part of the United Nations or on the part of the arms 
inspectors. Those come from documents from the Iraqis themselves, from 
their own declarations and their own documents. So the 6,500 liters of 
anthrax, for example, which is enough anthrax to kill around 1 million 
folks, is something that came from their documentation, not ours. That 
is something that they have not turned over.
  The thousands of chemical munitions that the gentleman has gone 
through, that comes from their documentation, not ours. So this is like 
the storekeeper who says here is my inventory list, and then later on 
he wants you to expect that somehow, without any outward manifestation 
or anything that could be picked up or anything that was shown to the 
rest of the world, all of those weapons have disappeared.
  Let me just say, and this might be the time to comment on this, the 
easiest bet in show business is that this tiny little handful of so-
called inspectors, and there are less inspectors than there are 
policemen in the average small town in America, the idea they are 
somehow going to be able to go through this massive state and discover 
weapons of mass destruction in these vast empty buildings that the 
inspectors are being shown by the Iraqi bureaucrats, the idea that that 
is in some way going to happen is an absolute fantasy.
  So I predicted early on, before this thing ever started, on the 
record, that they were not going to find anything of import. These 
folks have had a long time to bury it. And the Iraqi bureaucrat who 
actually leads arms inspectors into these places, and 90 percent of 
them are places where they have been before, time and again, big empty 
buildings, and lo and behold, there is a weapon of mass destruction 
that somehow the maid forgot to clean up from the night before, that 
bureaucrat is going to be considered two things: one, the dumbest 
bureaucrat in Iraqi history, and, secondly, shortly thereafter, the 
deadest bureaucrat in Iraqi history.
  So this is a state that has had an entire agency devoted to hiding 
things very effectively, and the idea that this little bitty corporal's 
guard of so-called inspectors is somehow going to find them, is like 
saying that this massive police force in Washington, DC., and the 
police force in D.C. is 10 times as big as the inspectors for all of 
Iraq, it is like saying that the drug lords of Washington, DC. are 
expected to pile all of their cocaine at an intersection on 
Pennsylvania Avenue at a given time. When they do not pile it up, and 
the Washington Post thereby concludes that there is not any cocaine in 
Washington, DC., you will have the equivalency to what some of the 
media is doing today with these reports of negative findings with 
respect to Iraq.
  Of course, they are not going to turn over this stuff that they have 
spent millions of dollars hiding to this little bitty force which does 
not have the ability to go in and which is having absolutely no success 
in terms of finding it.
  Remember this great idea where we were going to isolate or bring out 
for interrogation these people in the Iraqi technical establishment, 
the scientists, the engineers who build this stuff? Somehow we were 
going to get them and the families alone outside of the country, and 
then they were going to tell us things, just like the ones that have 
come out have told us.
  Now, that has not happened; and not surprisingly, while these people 
are under the control of Saddam Hussein, while the Iraqi guard stands 
there and looks them in the eye, they say, I would rather not talk 
unless I am accompanied by one of Mr. Hussein's officials.

                              {time}  1430

  Well, of course they say that. The safety of their lives and the 
lives of their children depend on them saying that.
  This country has to act in the security interests of the United 
States. I recall, with respect to these other countries that have not 
come on board, that when Menachem Begin hit the Iraqi nuclear reactor 
site in Osirak in the 1980s, lots of countries in the world publicly 
deplored the act, and said this was a terrible intrusion on the Iraqi 
airspace. They then walked quietly into the security of their own 
offices and they breathed sighs of relief because that capability had 
been taken away.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is this the same 
nuclear reactor that was built by the French?
  Mr. HUNTER. Yes. I think one French engineer was killed that way. 
There was one engineer working on a Saturday or Sunday at the Iraqi 
site. As I recall, there was one engineer killed.
  My point is, the world has two faces; one face in which they, too, 
are deathly afraid of an emerging nuclear capability on the part of 
Saddam Hussein, and terrified with the present-day chemical and 
biological weapons capability. They do not want him to hurt them, they 
want us to protect them. On the other hand, those people, especially 
the people that Don Rumsfeld describes as those who live in the 
neighborhood, who have to deal with them, are going to be very 
reluctant to publicly say that the bully should be taken on, because 
the bully is going to remember what they said.
  Mr. BUYER. I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
since we talked about the present threat, let us spend a little time on 
what Saddam Hussein has done from 1991 to present.
  With regard to his repression of the Iraqi people themselves, there 
is his refusal to admit human rights monitors; continued torture; the 
executions and repression of political opposition; disappearances of 
people in the night; withholding of food and medicine in the food for 
peace program; the mass murder of Iraqi Kurds and Iraq Shi'a Muslims. 
He continues to support international terrorist organizations, which 
has been well known.
  He also has refused to account for Gulf War prisoners. In his failure 
to account, Saddam Hussein has been unwilling to come forward on 609 
cases of missing Gulf War prisoners of war and missing in action 
representing 14 nationalities, including one American pilot. We also 
have Saddam Hussein failing to return and account for a large number of 
Kuwaiti citizens and citizens of other countries who were detained 
during the Iraqi occupation.
  Also, Saddam Hussein has refused to return stolen property from 
Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein has continued his efforts to circumvent the 
economic sanctions.
  So for those who are saying give peace a chance, let us let the 
economic sanctions work, are they working, I ask the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. HUNTER. I think the gentleman has given an excellent 
representation of what this dictator does, Mr. Speaker, and what he 
stands for. I think that builds an excellent context in which we can 
try to evaluate whether or not peace would work, given a chance.
  First, he is deceptive. Secondly, I think he believes his future 
depends on

[[Page 5370]]

manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Third, he is willing to take 
his own people through enormous discomfort and inconvenience and danger 
in order to achieve his own political ends.
  But I would say to the gentleman that there are pieces of Saddam 
Hussein's activities, although maybe not the composite, but it can be 
fairly said, and it has been said by lots of people, are there not 
other dictators in the world who do the same thing, and we are not 
attacking them?
  I would say that that is true. I would say the reason that I think we 
should move forward, and I think is the major justification for this 
massive operation, is American security. This guy is the leader who has 
used ballistic missiles against American troops and killed them with 
it. He has used poison gas against his own people in recent times. He 
has exhibited a willingness to kill Americans.
  As a result of the background that I have seen and the facts that I 
have seen, it is my conclusion that if he can achieve the production of 
a nuclear device, that at some point he will use it on our troops in 
theater or on Americans. I think it is a wise decision to keep him from 
being able to do that.
  That takes us to, I think, what I think is a very important point for 
policy debate. It has been a point for policy debate. We now have what 
I call the Pearl Harbor school emerging from the other side of this 
debate. Those are the people who say, by golly, we are America. We wait 
for our Pearl Harbors before we respond. When the enemy inflicts a 
heavy blow on us, that is when we rally; that is when we talk about the 
day of infamy; and that is when we go out and strike back and overwhelm 
the enemy, and justice prevails.
  The problem with the Pearl Harbor school is that these weapons are so 
severe today and so dangerous and so destructive that we cannot afford 
to wait to have a Pearl Harbor occur before we eliminate the source. To 
some degree, we are carrying that out right now. September 11 killed a 
lot of Americans; but, arguably, the new tightening of our borders, the 
new security efforts we have undertaken in the American homeland should 
prevent some of those things from being able to happen again.
  Therefore, it could be argued that there is no reason for us to be in 
Afghanistan going after people and disrupting terrorist groups; in 
fact, in some cases taking on people who personally were not involved 
in the event of 1995.
  But what we have discovered is that we do have to do some preemption. 
I think this question is going to be facing us again and again in this 
century: Are we going to stand by and watch somebody who has 
demonstrated an intent to kill Americans develop high technology with 
which he can kill lots of Americans, and stand by and wait for him to 
gain that weapon and use it on us before we respond; or are we going to 
try to eliminate that danger before the Pearl Harbor occurs?
  That is a tough thing, because Americans do not like to be the first 
ones to strike out. When we watch the speech of FDR after Pearl Harbor, 
there was no dissent in the House Chamber. That was an easy vote, that 
vote for war. We were all together, we had that common ground, and had 
that feeling that we were in the right. As Joe Lewis said, we felt that 
God was on our side.
  Now we are faced with these terrible weapons, and we cannot afford to 
take the blow that will come from those systems. In a way, we are a 
little bit like little tiny postage stamp Israel that stood there and 
watched this nuclear reactor being built in Iraq. They had seen the 
speeches by Saddam Hussein where he made thinly veiled threats to the 
effect that the final recipient of the output of those nuclear reactor 
plants would be weapons detonating in Israel. Israel realized they were 
too small, too flimsy, too frail to take that massive blow, so they 
went out and destroyed that plant.
  Unfortunately, one person was killed. He was an engineer from France 
who was working there over the weekend. But because of that, they saved 
thousands of people from being killed.
  So whether we embark on this policy of preemption or not is a valid 
subject for a major policy debate, but I think, in many cases, the 
answer must be yes; and certainly in this case this person is a person 
who has already killed Americans with ballistic missiles as well as 
with conventional capability, and has tried to acquire these other 
capabilities.
  Because of that, I think we see the intent, and when the intent is 
married up with the ability to do it, we are going to rue the day that 
we, for convenience' sake and for stability's sake and for safety's 
sake, we gave up an opportunity to disarm him when we had the 
opportunity.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, to support the gentleman's position on a 
preemptive strike, I think it has been clear that Saddam Hussein's 
efforts to circumvent the economic sanctions has proven itself very 
successful. Saddam has illegally imported hundreds of billions of 
dollars in goods, in violation of economic sanctions, and even outside 
of the U.N.'s oil for food program.
  For example, Iraq has imported a fiberoptic communications system 
that supports the Iraqi military. It has diverted dual use end items 
obtained under the oil-for-food program for military purposes. For 
example, Iraq diverted U.N.-approved trucks for humanitarian relief 
purposes for military purposes, and has used construction equipment to 
rebuild weapons of mass destruction-affiliated facilities. They came to 
Iraq under the dual use program.
  Saddam Hussein also has about $3 billion in illegal proceeds that he 
is able to use with these items. He is contracting with over 75 nations 
around the world, and he is giving priority contracts to France, 
Germany, and Russia in return for their support in this very difficult 
time.
  Does the gentleman have any comments he would like to add?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, and I hope my colleague 
will excuse me, because I have to go try to do something we have both 
been working on, and that is talk to some folks from our Committee on 
the Budget and convince them we need more for defense.
  But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the gentleman has laid out 
a very well-documented case for taking action. I notice also that the 
gentleman is a veteran of the Gulf War. He told me about the 
apprehension that he and other Americans had when they heard those 
missiles coming in.
  This is a very dangerous situation we are in. I think we have to 
acknowledge it every time we debate this issue. Is this dangerous? Yes, 
it is dangerous. The policies of doing nothing are also extremely 
dangerous. This is not going to be the easy century following the 
disassembly of the Soviet empire that we once thought it was going to 
be.
  I think we need to have a broad military capability, the ability to 
make a surgical strike, to fight guerilla warfare, to take on 
conventional attack and armored attack, and also the ability to stop a 
missile attack. We live in an age of missiles, and we have to be able 
to stop that.
  In this case, we have to have the ability to preempt and disarm an 
adversary whose intended goal is to destroy Americans. I know it is a 
difficult, tough thing to do, and I would just ask the gentleman to 
comment on this a little in his remarks after I leave.
  I have been impressed with this President, because if he had wavered 
slightly through this last process of the last 6 months or so, we would 
be faltering right now. But he understands his role, which is as 
President of the United States, and his duty to the security of the 
United States.
  That is not a role which is to be subverted by a vote by Cameroon, 
for example, or some other country whose name Americans have difficulty 
remembering. It is an American obligation to defend Americans. He is 
our Commander in Chief. He staged the forces very effectively for this 
operation. He is willing to account for the success or failure of any 
military operation. He is a good commander in chief. I think he has 
done the right things.
  I think some of the allies falling by the wayside was entirely 
predictable, because when good old Americans can

[[Page 5371]]

carry the load, other countries are often willing to let us do that. 
That is why, when we bring 90 percent of the funding to a military 
operation that they ask us to do, like Bosnia, we sometimes choke a 
little bit but we usually do it; and usually they are willing to stand 
back and let us bear the brunt of those operations, because it is 
practical for them for their politics and economy.
  But this President has kept his eye on the ball, which is to disarm 
Saddam Hussein. I think he is moving this mission forward in a very 
effective manner.
  I want to thank the gentleman. I would like him to talk a little bit 
about Desert Storm. I have to take off, but I would like the gentleman 
to share with folks about Desert Storm, that the gentleman is a veteran 
of, and the quality and capability of the folks we have in the Armed 
Forces.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Speaker.
  There have been over 17 resolutions before the United Nations in 
which Saddam Hussein continues his open defiance.
  The first resolution was November 29 of 1990, that said Iraq must 
comply fully with Resolution 660 regarding the illegal invasion of the 
country of Kuwait.
  The next resolution was number 686, on March 2 of 1991. It says Iraq 
must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War. Iraq must return 
Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. Iraq must accept the 
liability from international law for damages during its illegal 
invasion of Kuwait. He has not done anything about that.
  The next resolution, number 687 on April 3 of 1991, Iraq must 
unconditionally accept the destruction, removing and rendering harmless 
under international supervision of chemical and biological weapons, all 
stocks of agents, and all related subsystems and components of all 
research development, support, and manufacturing facilities. This was 
in 1991.
  Iraq must unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear 
weapons or nuclear weapons-usable material, or any research, 
development, or manufacturing facilities. It continues, recalcitrant.
  Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removal and 
rendering harmless under international supervision all ballistic 
missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. Now he is destroying 
missiles; this was back on April 3 of 1991. The list goes on and on 
under that resolution.
  The next resolution out of the U.N. Security Council was number 688 
on April 5 of 1991. It condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian 
population, the consequences of which threaten international peace and 
security.
  Iraq must immediately end repression of the civilian population, and 
Iraq must allow immediate access of international humanitarian 
organizations to those in need of assistance. It never happened. Those 
were the words of the U.N. April 5 of 1991.
  The next resolution came from the U.N. Security Council, number 707, 
on August 15 of 1991.

                              {time}  1445

  It condemned Iraq's serious violation of resolution 687. It condemned 
Iraq's noncompliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and 
its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iraq must 
halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems 
Iraq in full compliance. August 15 of 1991. Never happened.
  The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council, No. 715, October 11 
of 1991, said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Never happened.
  The next resolution from the U.N. Security Council, No. 949, October 
15 of 1994, condemns Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait. 
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner 
to threaten its neighbors or U.N. operations in Iraq. Iraq must fully 
cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq must not enhance its 
military capability in southern Iraq. Never happened.
  The next U.N. Security Council resolution was No. 1051 on March 27, 
1996. They said Iraq must report shipments of dual-use end items 
related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and to the 
International Atomic Energy Agency. Iraq must fully cooperate with the 
U.N. and these agency inspectors and allow immediate unconditional, 
unrestricted access. It never happened.
  The next U.N. Security Council resolution, 1060, on June 12, 1996. It 
deplores Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N. inspectors and Iraq's 
clear violations of previous U.N. resolutions. Iraq must cooperate 
fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate unconditional 
and unrestricted access. It never happened.
  The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council was No. 1115 on June 
21 of 1997. It condemns repeated refusal of Iraq authorities to allow 
access to U.N. inspectors which constitutes a clear and flagrant 
violation of U.N. resolutions 687, 707, 715 and 1061. Iraq must fully 
cooperate with the U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, 
unconditional and unrestricted access. Iraq must give immediate 
unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom the U.N. 
inspectors want to interview. It never happened.
  The next U.N. Security Council resolution was 1134 on October 23, 
1997. It condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to all access 
to the U.N. inspectors which constitutes a flagrant violation, again, 
of resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1061. It says Iraq must fully 
cooperate with the U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate 
unconditional, unrestricted access.
  Boy, this sounds like a broken record.
  Iraq must give immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi 
officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview. It never happened.
  The next resolution came from the U.N. Security Council on November 
12, 1997. It condemned the continued violations by Iraq of previous 
U.N. resolutions including the implicit threat of safety of aircraft 
operated by U.N. inspectors and the tampering of U.N. inspectors' 
monitoring equipment. It reaffirmed Iraq's responsibility to ensure the 
safety of U.N. inspectors, and Iraq must fully comply with U.N. 
inspections and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access. It 
never happened.
  The next U.N. Security Council resolution was 1154 on March 2, 1998. 
They said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and the International 
Atomic Energy Agency weapons inspectors and allow immediate 
unconditional, unrestricted access and notes that any violation would 
have the severest of consequences for Iraq. That was in 1998. Do you 
think Iraq was scared? These words are beginning to get very, very 
empty if you say them over and over again.
  The next resolution was 1194, September 9 of 1998. It condemned the 
decision by Iraq on the 5th of August 1998 to suspend cooperation with 
the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, which 
constitutes a ``totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations 
under the U.N. resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.'' And 
they said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and IAEA weapons 
inspectors and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access.
  The next resolution came on the 5th of November of 1998. It was 
resolution 1205 of the U.N. Security Council. It condemns the decision 
by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the U.N. 
inspectors as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 and other 
resolutions. And they said Iraq must immediately and completely and 
unconditionally cooperate with the U.N. and IAEA inspectors. It never 
happened.
  The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council was No. 1284, 
December 17, 1999. It created the United Nations Monitoring, 
Verification and Inspection Commission to replace previous weapons 
inspection teams. And they said Iraq must allow this new inspection 
team the immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi 
officials and its facilities. Iraq must fulfill its commitment to 
return Gulf War prisoners, this is 1999, and calls on Iraq to 
distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and 
address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis

[[Page 5372]]

without discrimination. It never happened.
  The next resolution then was the one which is presently being 
discussed, 1441. This resolution was meant to be different from all of 
these that I just mentioned. Because this resolution was by its very 
nature words that were negotiated painstakingly to give a final 
opportunity for Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations under 
all these relevant resolutions by the council.
  During that same time, Congress decided it would also exercise a 
voice. In 1998 there was H.R. 4655, a sense of the Congress that U.S. 
policy is regime change and democracy for Iraq. That was during the 
Clinton administration, October 5 of 1998.
  On December 20 of 2001, House Joint Resolution 75, Congress spoke and 
said Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions. It passed this 
House by a vote of 390 to 12.
  The next resolution that came from this House was on October 10, 
2002, which authorized military force in Iraq and passed this House by 
a vote of 296 to 132. So we have had a continued decade of deception 
and defiance that has been noted.
  The decade of deception and defiance continues. I went through this 
long litany. Sure, it may have taken 15 minutes, but it was 10 years of 
work and labor by the U.N.
  The time for the U.N. in its relevancy and materiality of this 
present is before us. Are the words going to have meaning? The 
President has come forward and made that point very clear to the United 
Nations.
  My hope is that the U.N. stands firm and gives definition to their 
meaning. Saddam Hussein has had a long history of complying with 
inspectors on a very small and technical scale, and then he continues 
to cheat inspectors on a very large scale. His tactical concessions are 
designed to buy time and ease pressure on his regime and to split the 
international community and to hopefully end resolve.
  Since 1991 Saddam has presented no fewer than six, six full and final 
and complete declarations of his illegal biological weapons programs 
alone. Each of these has been an outward lie and has failed to account 
for large stockpiles of prohibited materials.
  The United Nations has worked with three countries to give very good 
examples of cooperative disarmament. Those countries would be South 
Africa, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. And there are three very basic 
elements of cooperation. One is a decision must be made at the highest 
level to disarm. Next would be you have to state your national 
intentions. And third is you cooperate with international efforts to 
verify the disarmament behavior and that it is open and it is 
transparent, not secretive.
  Iraq with regard to its highest level, their efforts are concealment. 
Iraq also tasked its key institutions toward thwarting the inspectors, 
and instead of transparency, Iraq chooses to conceal and lie. That is 
very, very different from what we have seen. So the cosmetic compliance 
that is presently going on is nothing new.
  With regards to Dr. Blix, I want to extend my thanks. He has a very 
difficult job to do. He is trying to make Saddam Hussein comply. 
Knowing that this track record that we have laid out, knowing the 
little games he plays, and the cheat and retreat strategy that he has, 
Dr. Blix has a tremendous job. But Dr. Blix was never meant there to be 
a detective. He was meant there to work with a country cooperatively in 
a transparent effort to disarm the country that was meant to comply 
with all of these resolutions.
  So almost what has happened is that the world has placed an 
unrealistic expectation upon Dr. Blix. We cannot do that and should not 
do that to him. That is why resolution 1441, it demands nothing less 
than the full and immediate disarmament by Iraq. So this report that is 
going to be presented tomorrow is extremely important. I believe that 
no one can say that Iraq's cooperation has been full and immediate 
because the regime has submitted a false declaration, it has blocked 
private interviews. Only 5 of the 30 requested UNMOVIC have even taken 
place. They have threatened witnesses and their families with death, 
and they have hidden documents and concealed materials from inspectors.
  The ``why now'' question for me is obvious. For others who perhaps do 
not know about all these resolutions and what has gone on, it is a good 
question to ask. The President has come forward with a preemptive 
doctrine. Some maybe do not understand what a preemptive doctrine is.
  What is extremely important is after September 11 is that we have a 
right of self-defense. We also should be taking our defenses in doubt. 
What that means is you do not just say we are only going to focus on 
homeland security. We are going to cower in our defenses and seek the 
security because we feel unsecure. No. You take it to where the threat 
is. So whether it is in Afghanistan or whether it is in the Horn of 
Africa or wherever al Qaeda is trying to hide, you work cooperatively 
with nations; you take it to the terrorist organizations.
  Likewise, with Saddam Hussein, who poses a threat to destabilize the 
region of the Middle East, the United States as a superpower, some 
people are uncomfortable with that word, but it is true. The United 
States is the sole remaining superpower. We have a responsibility to 
regional stability in the world.
  Saddam Hussein has been recalcitrant to the world, and his threats 
will continue along with his cooperation with these terrorist 
organizations.
  Now, I am a father, like many. My son is 17. I love Ryan. But if I 
said, Ryan, you know, you have got a curfew and he violated his curfew 
17 times and I did nothing, and I see he is getting ready to go out 
tomorrow night and I said, Ryan, remember your curfew, what do you 
think he is going to do? He is going to come home whenever he pleases. 
Why? Because my words are hollow. They mean nothing. I say them, but he 
will not follow them because they have no meaning or definition, 
therefore, no consequence for the recalcitrant act. That is Saddam 
Hussein.
  So all these resolutions that I talked about, great words. They are 
firm. But if the U.N. is not going to give meaning and definition to 
the words, who will?

                              {time}  1500

  Who will stand up and exercise the might to make right? Once again, 
the United States, we have seen this before. We have been there before. 
We are going to do it again.
  I think about my comrades who find themselves on the desert floor. I 
remember very much what it was like. One thing I can share and to the 
mothers and fathers who have their loved ones who are about to be in 
harm's way is that not only has this Congress taken the appropriate 
resources to help train and equip these men and women over the last 
decade, this force is better than the force that I fought with in the 
Gulf War. I am so proud of them. When I see them, they give me chills. 
They represent the very best of America.
  I will never forget the scene in the Indianapolis airport of a young 
sailor who was getting ready to be shipped off, and he has his sisters 
with him, his very young brother, his parents are standing there and 
his grandparents are also standing there, and he is standing there in a 
sailor's uniform. His youngest brother is holding the sailor's cap as 
if it were a crown, and it is a scene unlike many scenes all across the 
country.
  Now this Congress has done its duty. It has been vigilant to make 
sure that this force is prepared. It will be highly lethal, it will be 
highly mobile, and it has very precise munitions.
  With regard to the enemy for which they are about to face, I remember 
the Iraqi people themselves, to include the conscripts. I interrogated 
many of them during the Gulf War. They do not like Saddam Hussein. Iraq 
is a very wealthy country, and Saddam only takes the wealth of that 
country to the benefit of a very few as he suppresses other tribes 
within Iraq. They do not like Saddam Hussein.
  One of the individuals I was interrogating had, under his blouse, I 
saw this red and blue sort of semicircle. I could

[[Page 5373]]

not understand exactly what it was. I asked him to undo his blouse and 
it was a Chicago Cubs T-shirt. He had relatives that lived in Michigan, 
and they were fans of the Cubs, and so he tried to track the Chicago 
Cubs.
  One other story. In order to help bring calm and peace at the Western 
antiwar camp, we gave the Iraqi prisoners, over 46,000 of them, what 
they wanted to hear. They wanted to listen to Madonna. So we piped in 
Madonna music. They are more Western than one can imagine, and they do 
like America, and they do not like Saddam Hussein.
  With regard to the leadership, I came out of the interrogation tent. 
My interpreter at the time was former King Fahd's grandson, Bandar, and 
as I come out of this tent, there is an Iraqi general officer sitting 
on the desert floor. He is sitting there with his legs crossed. His 
elbows are on his knees. His hands are in his face, and he is weeping 
like a child so hard that his shoulders are actually shaking. I stood 
there and I looked at this and behind are his army. I walked up to the 
gentleman, and I kicked the sole of his boot. I then ordered him to 
stand at attention.
  Through the interpreter he tells the general man to stand up. I got 
really close to him, looked at him, asked if he was a general officer. 
He asked him and acknowledged and shook his head and said yes, and I 
told him then act like one. Now think about this scene. I am a United 
States Army captain, telling an Iraqi general officer how to act. Why? 
Why would a United States Army captain have to do such a thing? Because 
he was not a general officer because of his strategic mind and his 
tactics. He was a general officer because of his loyalties and 
relationships to Saddam Hussein.
  So, with regard to ``the enemy'' in which we are about to face, they 
are not led by great military minds. So it would be no wonder why the 
conscripts and others will fold quickly. I also believe that he was 
weeping, not for his men which stood behind him, he was weeping for 
himself because he knew that upon repatriation, Saddam Hussein would 
probably execute him. That is the repression of Saddam Hussein.
  The Kurds and the Shi-ites have been waiting a long time for this 
day. I know that in my own sense and feeling of having gone through 
what no differently that my ancestors have gone through for freedom and 
liberty in this country, I know about the consequences of war. I know 
about the long dark shadows of horror. I know about things that are 
unimaginable and things one does not speak of and things that we see we 
just cannot believe. War is inhumane toward mankind and I cannot 
believe in this day and age, for all of our sophistication and 
technological advances, that man still yet has not found a way to 
resolve our differences.
  The bottom line is this is not up to us. This is now up to Saddam 
Hussein. I still hold out the hope that there is a country out there 
that is willing to take him in and that we can actually move in 
peacefully and change the regime. That is my desire, that is my hope. 
It is my prayer and I know that the soldiers that are standing there 
feel the same way. They pray for peace, even though they are prepared 
for war because they are the ones that gave an oath to give their life 
to defend the Constitution and our very liberties and freedom.
  So let me end where we started, with the voice of dissent. I 
acknowledge the voice of dissent as constructive to the discussion. I 
find what is not constructive are those in an antiwar message that 
would also be ``un-American.'' Do not go out and burn the flag. Do not 
say and be obnoxious and do something stupid. If a person has got 
something that is constructive that can bring peace and tranquillity to 
this world, step forward and say it, but they can do so in a manner 
without being un-American or being disrespectful of individuals of whom 
have lost loved ones, or even have someone who finds themselves in 
harm's way in the very next few days.
  I think what we should do is go find something and send it to a 
soldier that is in the desert. Pick it out, support the troops that are 
over there. Believe me, it is a very lonely place, the Saudi Arabia and 
Iraqi and Kuwaiti desert. Just to glance upon the American flag is 
something that will give a chill because it is the only thing out there 
that that can strike a memory of home and of loved ones.
  I know that the decision that President Bush has in front of him is 
one that he understands the burden of the decision because he also 
understands the opportunity that the peace will bring, not only to the 
regional stability, but the opportunities and new alliances and greater 
heights for freedom.

                          ____________________